Talk:Miner 2049er
Miner 2049er is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by Andrzejbanas (talk) at 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: 1982 video game |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Defense Command-Missile Command flaw
[edit]Defense Command was definitely not based on Missile Command, they are not even remotely similar.
-er
[edit]What does the -er suffix mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.92.43 (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a pun on the classic song Clementine: "In a cavern, in a canyon, lived a miner, forty-niner..." JIP | Talk 19:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, the original phrase "forty-niner" comes from the California Gold Rush of 1849. This game takes place in 2049, 200 years later. ✰oaoɪɪ/talk 05:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Mobile version?
[edit]The article has a picture of a mobile version. What platform? I looked in the Android Market, but couldn't find it.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC).
Re-write
[edit]Did a big re-write of the article. I know some material is missing a bit (publishers of the many versions of the game in the infobox etc.), but I've tried to just expand more pertinent details now. I'm a bit too young to remember when this game was all the rage, but I tried to do some justice for what appears to have been a really big deal at one point. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Miner 2049er/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Will take this on in the coming days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Six GA Criteria
[edit]1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the game.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image and one fair use GIF with proper rationale.
Lead
[edit]-Looks good
Gameplay
[edit]-Looks good
Development
[edit]-Looks good
Release
[edit]-Looks good
Reception
[edit]-"noting the animated moving feet on Bob and how his facial expression changes as jumps." I assume it's meant to be "as he jumps"?
- Correct. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
-Hyperlink Big Top
Legacy
[edit]-Looks good
Overall
[edit]-One last question: Is the Mountie hyperliked in the lead meant to the Canadian police officer? It doesn't seem to quite align with the game's interpretation of the main character as a prospector.
- Yes. Despite his look on the cover, the manual describes him as a mountie, which is indeed short for an RCMP officer. There was very little to discuss this, but this is why I included the bits about how the "Miner" theme was included in the game in the development section and the info about him being the artist who drew the cover who never saw the game. This probably explains why the sprite in the game has the character in a wide-brimmed had opposed to any sort of mining helmet or beard. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
-Overall the article is fantastic, and easily among the best written and interesting articles I've reviewed. Excellent job. I'll begin the spotcheck once the above minor issues are addressed, but due to the sheer volume of print sources, I will likely need to have you verify some contents with direct quotations for me if that's alright. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Those are very kind words. I've made the few changes you requested. The changes few changes you made seemed like the right choice. Up to you @Pokelego999:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Andrzejbanas Reviewing 23 sources randomly: 49, 75, 39, 61, 42, 16, 27, 53, 38, 80, 84, 22, 90, 26, 31, 1, 10, 8, 63, 79, 81, 58, 21.
- I'm fairly certain all of these are in offline sources, so could you clarify these when you have the time? Obviously holidays and all, so feel free to take your time with this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Those are very kind words. I've made the few changes you requested. The changes few changes you made seemed like the right choice. Up to you @Pokelego999:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)